About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

John Pakz 2, John Berry 2, Mike Howard 1, Courtney Clarkson 1, Mr. Berry 1, Bernie Choeden 1, Noel Cummins 1, Peter Vernt 1, The Northern California Cal 1, Mitigations 1, Michael Louis 1, Unsafety 1, Miller 1, Peter Vang 1, Laura Sament 1, David Friedman 1, California 1, City 1, Us 1, Priority 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    March 18, 2013
    6:30 - 7:00pm PDT  

6:30pm
recent numbers we estimate there is about a 2 percent chance of an earthquake and the 2 percent probability alone would justify this immediate spent you sped expenditure. a second point is that as a mandated capital improvement, owners of property that are subject to the rent stabilization board have the opportunity to pass a hundred percent of this through to tenants. in practice property owners will not be able to fully pass a hundred percent. but for tenants who are paying significantly below market rate they may absorb a hundred percent of the cost which works out somewhere $39 a month. the
6:31pm
final point i will make in respect to that is that one thing that is not clear based on the extensive research at the caps committee has done is how retrofitting improving is survivability. what we are asking at the tenants share the cost. there are stake holders who get benefits. property owners get more value due to retrofitting and housing stock that better meets the city's post disaster plans and policies relating to shelter and place, for example. so the only point we would make and we don't believe this has any net economic impact, but the only point our analysis suggest is the city take a close look at
6:32pm
the allocation and cost benefits and consider whether or not further study is necessary to see if the benefits exceed the cost in benefits in particular. in that point i will take any questions. >> think thank you. >> what did you mean by the comment that impractical reality that property owners couldn't pass through all of the hundred percent of the cost to the tenants? >> well, they legally could but the question if they already had a tenant that was already paying close to market rent and then they attempted to say i'm going to raise your rent. the tenant might leave so they run a risk of charging above market. as any landlord in a
6:33pm
non-rent control building would face anytime someone is trying to race someone's rent. >> this is more theoretical? >> well, yeah, it's certainly something that is reflecting the market and not the law. the law says a hundred percent. >> right. is there any data is that we have that suggest that with a market rate if you raised it by $80 that the tenant would leave. is there some kind of progression that shows that. in this current mark, i don't see that. >> right. it is a 20 year period as a pass through and the market rate is what it is. it's not what it is plus $80. i grant you that it's increasing rapidly in the current market. i think the reason property owners don't have that additional amount is because the demand is able to support what it supports and nothing more. but again, as we've looked at the distribution of
6:34pm
tenants and how long they have lived in their property and about a quarter of tenants in san francisco have lived there less than two years. those are the ones that are least likely to get the full amount t vast amount of rent control in san francisco are below market. >> thank you. >> thank you, new further questions? thank you. i believe that is conclusion of the departmental conversations. for this point we'll open it up for public comments. i do have public comment cards. if would you like to make a public comment and do not have a card please do so. public comments will be 2 minutes. when your time is up, you will hear a bell. i will call the names of the cards that i have. i apologize in advance for the
6:35pm
inevitable miss pronunciation. peter vernt, bernie choeden, heidi, maria, mike howard, efrin, paul warner, john berry, john pakz ton, george and glen. >> thank you, supervisors, thank you miss miller. my name is peter vang. i'm a resident. i'm a great admirer of the emergency management and as you can from some of the reports that have been written but it's always been bothering me tremendously over the years that we know when we walk into
6:36pm
the garages, down stair space of these apartment buildings we see these studies in sheet rock areas that are going to collapse. i'm so happy that the city administrators office is really thinking ahead because tenants must be given greater chance to be able to stay in their homes with their books, furniture and pets and neighbors. if we can somehow strengthen that ability to stay home it can mean huge benefit to the neighbors how we must rise through maybe 6 months or a year long crisis. i really admire this work you are doing. thank you very much. >> thank you, i'm with san
6:37pm
francisco tomorrow. caps one of soft story building of a much larger array of much more affected buildings. it's a priority that is required. first of all under the previous attempts, 10 thousand of those units were considered rent control which you indicated is rent decontrol by an effect cost. there are mitigations at your hands that need to be put into your legislation. first of all, you have a state required housing element that requires means, resources, that affects keeps the diversity of the city intact which are there and which the city is in default since it has no reinforceable
6:38pm
housing elements. that provides means and resources that are supposed to refer several years ago to the board of supervisors. the means are there if you will put them into function. secondly, under federal supreme court cases, depriving an owner of equity, making that unviable for means of public import if you refer as officers of the court you may recall long island and the robert moses attempt to run free ways, you cannot be private owners in affective viable quit of compensation. the means are at hand. you have for example in deferrable capital programs bond of $150 million a year. a forensic analysis audit of the mayor's office approved in this case.
6:39pm
>> thank you. next speaker please. thank you. next speaker. >> you don't have to go in the same order that i call you. so whoever is next. thank you. >> hi there. my name is heidi turm ian and i'm here to speak on behalf of the earthquake institute chapter. we are a regional member based organization that's dedicated to reducing earthquake risk. we advocate for the development of comprehensive programs. we feel the city and county of san francisco safety implementation program is such a program and the measures will protect the city's inhabitant and make san francisco a more resilient community. for the northern california cal chapter of the
6:40pm
earthquake engineering institute, i want to state that we are in favor of creation of mandatory for wood frame buildings in the city. the proposed ordinance learned from experience from other areas in the city and other areas. there have been inventories in santa clara counties and they have done great work in this area, there are mandatory evaluations ordinances in berkeley andal alameda. we feel practical experience exist to facilitate a program such as san francisco is looking at here today. we feel the cap study to reach a wide variety of audiences and they have a technical group and many stake holders groups
6:41pm
involved in that area and from other cities and other programs that these can help these along. i just would like to say the adoption of the ordinance would be an important milestone. i would like to pledge the support of our organization to support you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm john berry, speaking on behalf of myself. i'm a small time realtor and property manager. i think if ever there is an issue it's in fact that we have to do this from the seismic issue and light safety issue and dollars cost to be saved by not having to rebuild so many thousands of buildings. i want to address
6:42pm
that because that's kind of a given. as economic stuff, i manage about 80 units and in contrast to what your economist has said, i don't think a market rate is fixed given. i know i can market for raised money if there is no soft story issue risk involved . when i rent to place, i have a fire alarm system and it rents for much lower. market value is a benefit. it's a benefit to the property owner. as for the pass through, i have never done pass throughs that i tell my property owners that it's a lot of hassle. if you get into a
6:43pm
huge amount of punish where there is a lot of pass throughs. my reading of the rent control detail is you only pass through half of a cost if it's a 5 unit building or more. a lot of the rent control law talks about passing through half and it's kept by the property owner. that's kind of fair to me. i can be convinced otherwise, maybe but i don't think so. i like to share between the tenants and the owners. i recommend a half cost pass through. it will also save buildings -- >> thank you mr. berry. next speaker. >> hi, good afternoon. my name is maria. i work with the cause -- the organization based in san francisco mission district and through our work with our members and clients we see a lot of the buildings are in a
6:44pm
need of a lot of repairs including seismic retrofitting. we strongly agree that earthquake safety is necessary in our city and it's great that it's such a priority. unfortunately it should not be done at the expense of tenants especially after a hundred percent pass through. the majority of these buildings are under rent control and probably long-term rent control tenants. so an increase of $80 or more would create a situation where tenants would have to leave their units . we want housing safety and security at all levels, that includes earthquake safetien insuring the home is there after and also from eviction and displacement. that is why we ask that a hundred percent pass through does not happen. also,
6:45pm
an automatic hardship petition for anyone who passes through the rent would be more than 30 percent of their monthly income or more. we also ask that there be a cap so that this type of pass through, the seismic retrofitting does not get combined with any other capital improvement so there is a whole package of pass throughs that would create housing unsafety in a housing situation especially for a long-term rent control tenant. thank you for making sure our units are all safe and tenants are able to stay in their home. i think it would be great. >> thank you very much. next speaker. before we get to you, let me call a few more names. david
6:46pm
friedman, grace can, lawrence, mark, henry, kood a. >> good good afternoon supervisors. i would like to acknowledge the incredible work of the caps leadership group in the years before leading up to this legislation. they did an outstanding job on a really broad stakeholder input. i this i this legislation is absolutely essential and i urge you to pass it but i would like to follow-up in a different perspective control. i'm in a high area. i know a large number of series in the pacific heights area. in the
6:47pm
past the orders shown in this economic analysis document would be very difficult for them. this issue of financially vulnerable tents is tenants is not limited to any one area. certainly in some related legislation, to address the issue of the financially vulnerable tenants. it's no good saving the housing by displacing them now. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is laura sament. i'm here to speak or urban planning and research. we support this legislation before you and advocate the city pass such an ordinance. i think you all know
6:48pm
the reasons this ordinance is important to spur. i will quickly reiterate those. we know these buildings are vulnerable. we saw them damaged in the loma prieta earthquake. i serve for the project which conducted technical studies of these vulnerabilities of these buildings. we know that a lot of tenants can be left homeless as a result of this earthquake. most of these homes could collapsed and they have rent control unit. it's probably they would not be replaced by rental units at all as market conditions today often in san francisco have condominiums. spur strongly advocates that taking steps that shelter in
6:49pm
place after the next large earthquake. that means staying in their own homes during repairs. we know that retrofitting these buildings works. it would allow more tenants to stay in san francisco. i urge you to support this ordinance. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> i wish i was better at this there have been some pretty good presentations. i own a building. my name is mark howard. if you seismically reinforce a soft garage at the bottom of the building, the top of the building will fall down all around it. a building is a box. you have to reinforce that box when it sways in an earthquake all four sides all
6:50pm
the way to the top otherwise the top of the building will collapse and the people living up there will not be saved. you can look at the loma linda pictures. what i would like to say is that engineers don't make any money that way, i would like the board to hear a presentation from them and understand what i say. the other thing is that aside from the useless great expense, my 5 unit building would cause $250,000 to retrofit properly. i can have the garage reinforced for $50,000 but it wouldn't do me any good. you have to realize that it's now coming up with a split roll tax to have all the owners to increase their property taxes
6:51pm
by 2 or 300 percent. i don't feel that many of us can withstand all the expense and i think a lot of this we'll have to give up our properties. we will buy something somewhere else. i don't know how that will impact the economic situation in san francisco, but we just can't do it. we are still paying the same maintenance, city tax on water and garbage and although our buildings are worth more until we die. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> supervisors, thank you very much. i'm a private consulting structural engineer in san francisco. i'm here to speak in behalf on the cap ordinance and seismic safety program being proposed. i commend the supervisors and mayor who have
6:52pm
propose td program. i think it is vital as a past member and president of the san francisco commission, i know how hard it was to get this program started, implemented and going. i'm fully in support of this. i hope i speak for the rest of my peers in the engineering community. this is vital and should be pass as soon as possible. we could not wait much longer. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is grace kang and i represent the structural engineering association of california and we endeavor to enhance the life safety and economic well being of the public through direct involvement in the development of building codes through
6:53pm
community education and with legislative and regulatory agency. we provide formal and informal advice to the city of san francisco and in support of this implementation program, they set up a process where sea members. in this regard we have established a working group to participate in the implementation development of the soft frame retrofit ordinance. this working group of structural engineers have met to discuss the aspects of the ordinance. as part of this discussion the group has developed and endorses the following statements of support for the ordinance. supports the city of county of san francisco's effort to
6:54pm
reduce risk through a comprehensive program such as thatten visioned by the safety implementation program and -- can be effective towards risk reduction goals and we'll continue to develop technical criteria appropriate for the ordinances purpose and intent. we will also continue to support the city's implementation of the ordinance through education and guidance of engineers and other stake holders. we look forward to continue our relationship with the county and city of san francisco. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. before we get to mr. -- i will call the final cards. michael louis, thank you for putting the pronunciation. courtney
6:55pm
clarkson and noel cummins. those are all the cards i have. if you have not filled out a card and would like to speak, the cards are at the front. >> good afternoon, i wear two hats one of the president of the san francisco small property owners and the merchants association. personal property owners, these are the ones most affected. even though it's taken over the reduced period of time. it's not going to take as much. they can't split that payment over a large amount of years and then not be up to pass it through the property owners point of view. on the other hand, a lot of merchants have a lot of money invested in their properties. unlike other tents where they
6:56pm
don't have any investment in their properties, the businesses do. they can spend $300,000 to building out spaces. for them it's critical that something be done and this legislation would help them out. if we wait until something happens, they will loss what they have invested. it's a good thing for the small businesses. on the whole i think it's great legislation and i look forward to it passing. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is john pakz ton, i was on the advisory committee and i'm act ive with spur. i strongly
6:57pm
encourage this legislation. my concern is the longevity of the housing stock in san francisco. very few you people realize we have the oldest housing stock in the side of the mississippi and the majority of these buildings were built before world war ii and includes material that is susceptible to decay and deterioration. the cap support that in the magnitude earthquake that about 58,000 residents would lose their home that is about 28,000 housing units. it's not how many housing units we build every year. it's how many we keep. it's taken the last 15 years to build those 28 units.
6:58pm
everybody started off being at each other's throats looking out for each other's best interest. after everybody saw the importance of what was going to happen, we all came together and in the end there is a unanimous conclusion that would support the recommendations you have in front of you now. this is what the caps report looks like. a report that never saved a life, it never prevented property damages. it's only what you folks do with it afterwards and we strongly encourage you to take up this legislation and prove it. this is the first step in many steps in the earthquake safety program and it's going to have the greatest bang for the buck. thanks for your support. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> good evening, my name is --
6:59pm
more importantly i have been a residenter renter in san francisco in an apartment in a building that is not seismically safe. i'm under rent control and i have been in that apartment for 20 years. if it means having to pass that assures the safety of me and the cotenants in the apartment of i have no problem with such a pass through and to ensure the safety and resilience of san francisco i fully hope you support this proposition. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker? >> my name is cheryl. i'm a visiting professor as mills college and also a former tenant in a soft story in san francisco and current tenant in a soft story in the city

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)